Catholics only: Do you hate homosexual sex acts (as we are obliged to)?

[blessedtoo]

Why are you anxious about what you will say to your Lord when (not if–you sound like a person who hungers and thirsts for righteousness and Jesus was very clear on what he has waiting for people like you) you meet him? Why does the prospect of going home to your father create a sense of worry and trepidation in you?

Because we are called to evangelization. Because we are called to be our brother’s keeper. Because we are not alone in the world, responsible only for ourselves and our own personal salvation. If that were the case, Christianity would never have spread beyond the first twelve.

I suspect, in part, because you are not clear on church teaching. The Church does not spell out any consequences at all for your son or your sister. The church warns against POSSIBLE consequences. However, the Church is OVERWHELMINGLY clear that we are ultimately responsible to our own conscience, first and foremost.

Sorry. That is pie-in- the-sky thinking. POSSIBLE consequences? I believe the Church is pretty clear on what happens when a person rejects God, remains obstinant in the sin, and desires no repentence. I am perfectly clear on Church teaching.

Now, if your son or sister has expressed to you that THEY FEEL as if they are unable to acknowledge a relationship with the divine, then it is a different story. If they feel cut off from God, then they probably are. Though even then…Mother Theresa apparently struggled with feelings of being out of the prescence of God–sometimes, even if you do feel cut off from God, you aren’t! That makes me think of Footsteps in the Sand…

Mother Theresa, God bless her soul, was not an unrepentent sinner and to compare her “darkness” to the sinful lifestyles of my family members is absurd. They are in darkness because they CHOOSE to remain in darkness. They don’t FEEL God, because they have walled themselves off from grace.

Anyway, you asked me what I thought you should do and I’ll tell you: be kind to them, love them unreservedly and without exception. They will know us by our love, he said. Unleash the light of your love upon them and perhaps, if they can catch that glimpse of Christ in you, they will both end up the better for it.

Well, if they were to catch a “glimpse of Christ” in my loving them, they would certainly see the whole Christ (including the one who told all sinners to “sin no more”) and not just the teddy bear Christ that many in our Church seem to favor.

 

[hasikelee]

The reason I ask is that many threads here have Catholics who understand very well that we are supposed to treat homosexuals with respect (a good thing!), but do not seem to grasp the seriousness of the danger to the homosexual of being sexually active.

I post it here in Social Justice because I feel it speaks very much to the common good, however politically incorrect it may sound.

I have heard people say they have a problem with anybody who treats homosexual sex acts as more serious than other mortal sins, such as contraception or fornication. This makes no sense to me.

I have heard people say that homosexual sex acts are expressions of love, which also makes no sense to me.

Are the “peace and love” people missing the fact that the active homosexuals they love will basically rot in hell if they do not repent?

Although I learned the teaching of chastity and the sacredness of our sexuality at a young age, it was not until highschool when I learned the specifics of homosexual actions.

This learning experience was during a class on biology and has left me with a feeling of sorrow for those who are compelled to commit these actions.

Our bodies were not created to insert things into certain areas, whether we are attracted to the same or opposite sex. It is very damaging, increases the risk of STDs and due to our social construct also very degrading.

 

[dconstruct]

"…Is it compassionate to deny a sinner a last chance to repent? Is it compassionate thereby to consign him to Hell, with the kindly look on your face the last thing he sees? That is the devil’s compassion, not the Lord’s."

And who shall they repent to? You? I question your concept of righteousness, which means that your concept of hell is similarly spurious.

There is no such thing as “the devil’s compassion” as all charity and desire to comfort has its origins in love.

Blessedtoo said:

**We are called to evangelization. **

We are all called first to love one another as Christ loved us (i.e. unequivically and selflessly). If you don’t have that basic grasp of what Christian love is, then you are in no position to evangelize to anyone.

I believe the Church is pretty clear on what happens when a person rejects God, remains obstinant in the sin, and desires no repentence.

Conscious rejection of God is not the same thing as disagreeing with a stated position of the church. Indeed, I refer back to the law of conscience.

I have seen divorced people receive communion from priests who know that they are divorced. How can this be? Because it is not the priests’ place to question the conscience of the person before him preparing to receive the sacraments.

Whether your sister is gay or not, if she was confirmed in the church, then she is entitled to the last rights administered by a Catholic priest when she is on her deathbed…even with her lesbian partner right next to them both.

Pie-in-the-sky thinking? Absolutely not. If anything, the overwhelming negativity in your conviction that they are doomed to damnation seems to border on despair that the power of Christ’s love can overcome all things, and there is a name for that that I am sure you are aware of given how “perfectly clear” you are on church teaching. In Catholic theology, that despair is referred to as a sin against the Holy Spirit and is, I believe, the only unforgivable sin.

** Mother Theresa, God bless her soul, was not an unrepentent sinner and to compare her “darkness” to the sinful lifestyles of my family members is absurd. **

Who are you to speculate on the hearts of either Mother Theresa or those people in your family? By what authority do you claim to know the deepest intentions of another? There is a name for that too, according to Church Doctrine…

Again, to dismiss your own family as “unrepentant sinners” reeks of despair. If you truly have so little regard for your family, how do you cope with Jesus’ command to “love your enemies?” Or is that one of the “less-important” bits?

Finally,

Well, if they were to catch a “glimpse of Christ” in my loving them, they would certainly see the whole Christ (including the one who told all sinners to “sin no more”) and not just the teddy bear Christ that many in our Church seem to favor.

The beauty of the Church (and truly, the Catholicity of it) is that Christ’s message was so profound and perfect that there is something in it that appeals to all people. Christ’s message of love, compassion, charity and forgiveness is what appeals to me…not the severe, loveless-admonishing part of his message…

Oh wait!

There was no severe, loveless-admonishing part to Christ’s message…sorry, my bad.

Merry Christmas!

 

[estesbob]

The beauty of the Church (and truly, the Catholicity of it) is that Christ’s message was so profound and perfect that there is something in it that appeals to all people. Christ’s message of love, compassion, charity and forgiveness is what appeals to me…not the severe, loveless-admonishing part of his message…

Merry Christmas!

I have read all your posts again and have figured it out. The massage, as you see it, is so profound and perfect that actually there is NO message at all. Your posts are such a mishmash of flowery prhases and pseudo theology that ones come to realize that there is no substance to them at all. kumbaya my friend. kumbaya.

 

[dconstruct]

I have read all your posts again and have figured it out. The massage, as you see it, is so profound and perfect that actually there is NO message at all. Your posts are such a mishmash of flowery prhases and pseudo theology that ones come to realize that there is no substance to them at all. kumbaya my friend. kumbaya.

I’m sorry, but I am very clear and very consistent. If you need it any simpler, how about this:

The message is to love, be compassionate and treat others with kindness. The message is not to be foolishly self-righteous and measure your own sanctity by the flaws that you see in others; quite the contrary.

Now, maybe I’m not so fire and brimstone and preachy and willing to point my accusatory finger with pronouncement of wickedness upon other people as you seem to be used to when dealing with other religious people, but everything I have written so far on this board is very much consistent with Roman Catholic Orthodoxy. It is all about what you choose to fixate on.

From where I am standing, “Christ as comfort” is more important than harping on who is saved and who isn’t. Generally, I leave that sort of nonsense to protestants; everyone so concerned with proving to everyone else that they are saved that they start handling pit-vipers and inducing ecstatic seizures during their services.

I’m sorry, I am for old-time, contemplative theology and non-interactive Latin Mass not Kumbaya on the acoustic guitar.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

In the Confetior we confess for what we have done and for what we had failed to do.

One could imply or draw many assumptions from this comment, and if you were a homosexual they would, that was the message

It is interesting that we are always hearing about our homosexual brothers and sisters. But we never hear about our adulterous brothers and sisters or are incestuous brothers and sisters.

I am glad to see you now understand the issues the Homosexuals have been discussing

I suspect the truth of the matter is you not comfortable with Church teaching on homosexuality. Rather than acknowledging that you prefer [t]o attack those who point out the clear Catholic teaching on this.

That seems to lack logic, contraception, and fornication would have to be overly abundant particularly in comparison to SSA so your own words indicate “we are always hearing about our homosexual” so why does SSA have this special response?

I hope you’re not suggesting that only perfect people are allowed to proclaim the teachings of the Church?

It is not the Church teachings at issue not at all, It is the special response. The thread is “hate” if you go back to the posts (another thread) which were being referred to you see for example murders and other undesirable conditions being associated with the homosexual so the whole issues is why?

Yes it is readily apparent that you are more than willing to criticize those who criticize sin.

In another post you can read the opinion that Jesus had to deal with one group of sinners before he could address the adulteress women, yet again we see little said about one group of sinners but plenty about the women. So why is one group of sinners so easily dismissed while the other group needs insulted?

What a ridiculous assertion. So we are [we] to remain silent in the face at any sin whatsoever as we are not perfect?

so exactly what is in your face

So when I counsel in a crisis pregnancy center I should never criticize abortion because I have sins in my own? This ridiculous argument is only found in threads about homosexuality.

exactly! you got it! If you treat the woman as the gay that is unacceptable! I am so glad to see you understand

 

[catharina]

dconstruct:

**1.**Conscious rejection of God is not the same thing as disagreeing with a stated position of the church. Indeed, I refer back to the law of conscience.

**2.**I have seen divorced people receive communion from priests who know that they are divorced. How can this be? Because it is not the priests’ place to question the conscience of the person before him preparing to receive the sacraments.

**3.**Whether your sister is gay or not, if she was confirmed in the church, then she is entitled to the last rights administered by a Catholic priest when she is on her deathbed…even with her lesbian partner right next to them both.

Pie-in-the-sky thinking? Absolutely not. **4.**If anything, the overwhelming negativity in your conviction that they are doomed to damnation seems to border on despair that the power of Christ’s love can overcome all things, and there is a name for that that I am sure you are aware of given how “perfectly clear” you are on church teaching. In Catholic theology, that despair is referred to as a sin against the Holy Spirit and is, I believe, the only unforgivable sin.

** Mother Theresa, God bless her soul, was not an unrepentent sinner and to compare her “darkness” to the sinful lifestyles of my family members is absurd. **

**5.**Who are you to speculate on the hearts of either Mother Theresa or those people in your family? By what authority do you claim to know the deepest intentions of another? There is a name for that too, according to Church Doctrine…

The beauty of the Church (and truly, the Catholicity of it) is that Christ’s message was so profound and perfect that there is something in it that appeals to all people. 6. Christ’s message of love, compassion, charity and forgiveness is what appeals to me…not the severe, loveless-admonishing part of his message…

**7.**Oh wait!

There was no severe, loveless-admonishing part to Christ’s message…sorry, my bad.

Merry Christmas!

Rather than ignoring your misperceptions I’ll attempt to notify you as to some of the flaws in your grasp of Theology.

**1. Conscious rejection of the will of God is conscious rejection of God. Church teaching regarding the sexual activity of those involved in homosexual behaviors is as it was stated in Jewish Law. That’s some 5000 years of God’s unchanging Law - not a new idea fashioned for today.

1. You have to know that divorced Catholics are always (and have always been) free to receive the Holy Eucharist unless they are living in a “new” (invalid) marriage. Did you forget that? Or do you know of some “different” Theology?
2. If you’re implying that people are free to wait for a last-minute “good confession” before they repent, how are they to know when that last minute will arrive?
3. If the Church has ever firmly defined the “sin against the Holy Spirit” it’s news to me. Suggesting that another might be guilty of an unforgiveable sin is beyond the pale, don’t you think?
4. We are free to consider Mother Teresa a role model for the good until and unless the Church says otherwise.
5. One cannot pick and choose a flavor of Christ for one’s life. The Jesus Who forgave sinners is the same Who told Peter himself “Get thee behind Me, Satan,” the same also Who called bad teachers “whitened sepulchres,” the same Who preached and lived obedience to God’s Divine Will.
6. Jesus did have some very harsh rejecting words for some people who refused to accept Truth.Denying that fact doesn’t make the words go away.**

The everlasting peace of Jesus Christ to all of us.

 

[dconstruct]

This is going to be fun!

1. Conscious rejection of the will of God is conscious rejection of God. Church teaching regarding the sexual activity of those involved in homosexual behaviors is as it was stated in Jewish Law. That’s some 5000 years of God’s unchanging Law - not a new idea fashioned for today.

Actually, what I said was that conscious rejection of God is not the same thing as disagreeing with a stated position of the church.

The Church is very clear that in order to acheive salvation, one must follow Christ’s commands to love and to participate in the sacraments. One must also guard against sin (sin defined as willfull transgression of the order eternal).

Now, it is clear from Jesus’ own commentary that the laws of the old testament were made for the “hardness of the hearts” of the ancient Israelites. Jesus clearly calls Christians to a higher standard of compassion, kindness and understanding.

“Love one another as I have loved you,” he says.

1. You have to know that divorced Catholics are always (and have always been) free to receive the Holy Eucharist unless they are living in a “new” (invalid) marriage. Did you forget that? Or do you know of some “different” Theology?

Nope, I was actually referring to re-married “catholics” that I know in my parish.

1. If you’re implying that people are free to wait for a last-minute “good confession” before they repent, how are they to know when that last minute will arrive?

Actually, people are free not to repent at all. But, you misread my implications. What I was trying to imply here was that if the Church refuses to write off these people as “condemned” then why do you feel so confident to assume this priveldge?

1. If the Church has ever firmly defined the “sin against the Holy Spirit” it’s news to me. Suggesting that another might be guilty of an unforgiveable sin is beyond the pale, don’t you think?

Despair is the sin against the holy spirit. This is why suicide is a one way ticket to torment. This is exactly how it was explained to me.

Regarding your feeling that I suggested that another is guilty of an unforgivable sin, what I said was:

the overwhelming negativity in your conviction that they are doomed to damnation seems to border on despair

I didn’t accuse anyone of anything. I said that it seemed to border on sinful behavior. I’ll stand by that, actually.

Furthermore, for someone willing to bounce around bible verses on who gets to go to heaven and who doesn’t, it is positively amazing to me that you would suggest that it was “beyond the pale” for me to suggest that someone wasn’t going to heaven.

Here’s one for you:

Do you think homosexual acts are somehow more evil than the sinfulness of failures in christian charity and mercy?

You see, I don’t.

My comments seem “beyond the pale” to you because normally it is the anti-gay types that you see who toss around pronouncements of damnation. Goes to show you how much diversity of thought there is right under your own roof, huhn?

1. We are free to consider Mother Teresa a role model for the good until and unless the Church says otherwise.

Mother Theresa was a perfect example of patience, humility and unceasing compassion in the face of what, without faith, would certainly seem to be hopeless conditions.

1. One cannot pick and choose a flavor of Christ for one’s life. …

On the contrary, we all pick and choose flavors of christ for our lives. Based on cultural contexts, different people perceive the majesty of God in different ways. This is why in Lourdes, Our Blessed Mother appeared as a French woman and in Guadalupe, Mary appeared as an Aztec woman.

You, for example, seem to fixate on “obedience” and admonition. You are likely more comfortable with authoritarian social constructs than I am. For myself, were I to fixate on what the church would describe as the litany of my faults, I would likely end up angry and embittered with little to comfort me besides the notion that as long as I obey, it will all be better once I am dead…

Sorry, but that doesn’t sound like the sort of life I want to live. I don’t think that I would be as loving to my neighbor if I thought as you do.

We all fail. We are all wicked…but, the quicker you figure out that all you can do is forgive and move on, the quicker you will be liberated from your sufferring.

1. Jesus did have some very harsh rejecting words for some people who refused to accept Truth.

Give me one example. Give me one example of Jesus being intentionally cruel to someone because they disagreed with him. Just one.

 

[Janet_S]

Don’t forget the spiritual works of mercy. It’s actually an act of love to try to correct people trapped in sin.

The Spiritual Works of Mercy

The seven practices of Catholic charity toward our neighbor’s soul:

» Convert the sinner

» Instruct the ignorant

» Counsel the doubtful

» Comfort the sorrowful

» Bear wrongs patiently

» Forgive injuries

» Pray for the living and the dead

These are based on the teaching of Christ and on Church practice since apostolic times.

The spiritual works of mercy are oriented toward the soul. (The corporal works of mercy are oriented toward the body.)

 

[blessedtoo]

Give me one example. Give me one example of Jesus being intentionally cruel to someone because they disagreed with him. Just one.

What rubbish.

Who is talking about being “intentionally cruel”?

Your issue seems to be that speaking the truth equals being unloving and cruel. I can see you are a “feelings” oriented person. Don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, even if that means they might never be united with God. I’m sure glad the people who were instrumental in my re-conversion didn’t agree with that ideology.

You’ve completely twisted nearly everything I’ve said, and almost everything else said by other posters.

Please, with your compassionate heart, allow that perhaps I know my sis and son a bit better than you do, anonymous poster. I might just have some slight inside knowledge of their rejection of God. And if I am looking at these people whom I love with all my heart and not becoming frightened for their salvation, then I am lacking in all Christian compassion. I don’t deserve to call myself a Catholic. Maybe I’m a buddhist, or a wiccan, or a new age spiritualist. But I am definately not a good Catholic.

Based on your above post, I might just conclude that you believe adherence to the Commandments is not longer required because:

Now, it is clear from Jesus’ own commentary that the laws of the old testament were made for the “hardness of the hearts” of the ancient Israelites. Jesus clearly calls Christians to a higher standard of compassion, kindness and understanding.

“Love one another as I have loved you,” he says.

Jesus also said, “if you love me, you will keep the Commandments”. Or do you find this incompatible with His command for us to love one another?

In my understanding of Catholic theology, one without the other can’t exist. It is a false and empty faith to adhere to one and reject the other.

I would still like you to answer the question I posted before. According to you, we should all mind our own beeswax and just “love” eachother. If this is our command from God, tell me how Christianity ever got beyond the first twelve?

 

[dconstruct]

The original apostles were bathed in the fire of the holy spirit at pentacost. That same grace is passed on to bishops and priests.

Are you suggesting that you have some sort of similar authority to “evangelize?”

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

The original apostles were bathed in the fire of the holy spirit at pentacost. That same grace is passed on to bishops and priests.

Are you suggesting that you have some sort of similar authority to “evangelize?”

CCC905 Lay people also fulfill their prophetic mission by evangelization, “that is, the proclamation of Christ by word and the testimony of life.” For lay people, "this evangelization . . . acquires a specific property and peculiar efficacy because it is accomplished in the ordinary circumstances of the world."440

This witness of life, however, is not the sole element in the apostolate; the true apostle is on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful.441

CCC2472 The duty of Christians to take part in the life of the Church impels them to act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it. This witness is a transmission of the faith in words and deeds. Witness is an act of justice that establishes the truth or makes it known.269

All Christians by the example of their lives and the witness of their word, wherever they live, have an obligation to manifest the new man which they have put on in Baptism and to reveal the power of the Holy Spirit by whom they were strengthened at Confirmation. 270

 

[dconstruct]

…by the example of their lives and the witness of their word…

It seems to me that I would rather focus on the former whereas you obviously prefer the latter (i.e. giving an example of compassion, rather than chastizing the lapsi).

Whatever…It’s Christmas Day and I’m about to go to Church with my wife and kid.

Merry Christmas to you!

 

[catharina]

It seems to me that I would rather focus on the former whereas you obviously prefer the latter (i.e. giving an example of compassion, rather than chastizing the lapsi).

Whatever…It’s Christmas Day and I’m about to go to Church with my wife and kid.

Merry Christmas to you!

You’ve given many good examples of your either-or/pick-and-choose ideas regarding Christian living. At least I’m convinced that you are extremely comfortable with your hail-fellow-well-met “approach” to serving God by following Christ. Does that attitude extend to allowing others to follow their consciences in supporting Church teachings? I mean, whatever, yes, for sure - but I’m just home from Mass and am asking you as gently as I can. Does your hail-fellow-well-met stance include accepting those who follow a more cautious approach in evaluating their own calls to conscience? Or do you see them as judgmental freaks?

Merry Christmas.

 

[Janet_S]

You’ve given many good examples of your either-or/pick-and-choose ideas regarding Christian living. At least I’m convinced that you are extremely comfortable with your hail-fellow-well-met “approach” to serving God by following Christ. Does that attitude extend to allowing others to follow their consciences in supporting Church teachings? I mean, whatever, yes, for sure - but I’m just home from Mass and am asking you as gently as I can. Does your hail-fellow-well-met stance include accepting those who follow a more cautious approach in evaluating their own calls to conscience? Or do you see them as judgmental freaks?

Merry Christmas.

If anyone is interested in discussing the Catholic idea of “conscience,” I started a new thread here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=207627

In this thread, I challenge anyone to show me a Church document that states it is acceptable for a Catholic to form his or her conscience (in matters of faith or morals) in opposition to Church teachings.

A lot of the cafeteria Catholics on this forum appeal to “conscience,” but they are usually appealing to conscience as a “right” to dissent from Church teachings on issues of sexual morality. You rarely (or never) hear these same cafeteria Catholics talk about conscience as a responsibility to stand up for what the Church teaches or to put these teachings into practice in our lives.

George Cardinal Pell wrote an article “The Inconvenient Conscience.” I recommend everyone here read it. If your conscience is telling you only what you want to hear or telling you just to go along with the status quo, then it’s probably not your conscience guiding you. It’s simple self will.

You can read the article here:
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=195

Why do people strain to accommodate absolute sexual freedom as a matter of conscience? Why does no one plead for the right to racism or sexism as a matter of conscience? **Could it be because the liberal concept of conscience has been specially formulated in order to facilitate the sexual indiscipline that our culture upholds? **

 

[catharina]

If anyone is interested in discussing the Catholic idea of “conscience,” I started a new thread here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=207627

In this thread, I challenge anyone to show me a Church document that states it is acceptable for a Catholic to form his or her conscience (in matters of faith or morals) in opposition to Church teachings.

A lot of the cafeteria Catholics on this forum appeal to “conscience,” but they are usually appealing to conscience as a “right” to dissent from Church teachings on issues of sexual morality. You rarely (or never) hear these same cafeteria Catholics talk about conscience as a responsibility to stand up for what the Church teaches or to put these teachings into practice in our lives.

George Cardinal Pell wrote an article “The Inconvenient Conscience.” I recommend everyone here read it. If your conscience is telling you only what you want to hear or telling you just to go along with the status quo, then it’s probably not your conscience guiding you. It’s simple self will.

You can read the article here:
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=195

Wonderful, Janet. Thank you.

 

[estesbob]

One could imply or draw many assumptions from this comment, and if you were a homosexual they would, that was the message

I am glad to see you now understand the issues the Homosexuals have been discussing That seems to lack logic, contraception, and fornication would have to be overly abundant particularly in comparison to SSA so your own words indicate “we are always hearing about our homosexual” so why does SSA have this special response? It is not the Church teachings at issue not at all, It is the special response. The thread is “hate” if you go back to the posts (another thread) which were being referred to you see for example murders and other undesirable conditions being associated with the homosexual so the whole issues is why?

In another post you can read the opinion that Jesus had to deal with one group of sinners before he could address the adulteress women, yet again we see little said about one group of sinners but plenty about the women. So why is one group of sinners so easily dismissed while the other group needs insulted?

so exactly what is in your face exactly! you got it! If you treat the woman as the gay that is unacceptable! I am so glad to see you understand

What a load of rubbish.

 

[fix]

Conscious rejection of God is not the same thing as disagreeing with a stated position of the church. Indeed, I refer back to the law of conscience.

Conscience is never above truth.

[1792](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1792.htm’) Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

 

[Filius99993]

Give me one example. Give me one example of Jesus being intentionally cruel to someone because they disagreed with him. Just one.

Well, he did kind of make that fig tree whither…

 

[rpp]

Give me one example. Give me one example of Jesus being intentionally cruel to someone because they disagreed with him. Just one.

Gosh, there are so many to choose from. Do I have to limit myself to only one? I mean he called the pharasees of His day vipers to their faces and compared them “white-washed sepulcurs” which are pretty on the outside but full of corruption inside.

Then there was the time when he made a whip and chased the money changers out of the temple.

Another time he mock a mob who wanted to stone a woman caught in adultery.

Boy! There are so many to choose from… I just am not sure which one to pick.

Oh, I know!

How about when he called Peter, the future leader of His Church, “Satan” because Peter was concerned for the Jesus’ safety and objected to Him going to Jerusalem, where ultimately, he was arrested and crucified.